Right. While I agree about not telling people they can't use a slur in group, I think we (outsiders) are certainly justified in questioning the practice. Some slurs, I think, would be best left to the rubbish heap of history. We really need to rise above that kind of behaviour.

Yet here we are casually discussing "SJW"'s. Not that the type of person we seem to be bashing here doesn't exist;

Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any "bashing" going on. I mean, we actually have to be able to name something and discuss something in order to actually comprehend that something. There are truths about SJWs' behaviour that bear revelation and examination. Discussing these behaviours honestly, critically but not disrespectfully is not the same thing as bashing them. If what we had perceived as truth turns out not to be so, then we can correct our perspective. It seems, on the contrary, that several of us have more or less the same experience with those behaviours. This leads me to think that we're witnessing the same phenomenon.

quite a lot of people - on all sides of the political spectrum - just really seem to get off on anger and pretty much actively seek out excuses to lash out on someone. But the term SJW has strong connotations of being an insult for anyone with any socially progressive ideas,

Here I think we need to make a very strong distinction! I don't quite know what you mean by "socially progressive ideas"; I've mentioned some of the things that I consider social progression. (There are others, to be sure, and we may even find common ground!) As I understand the term "socially progressive" I (in the Christian Midlands) have no reason to fear or loathe the term SJW. Also, respecting those people further to the Right and further to the Left from me but who are also in genuine concern for just and good "social progression", even if I don't agree with the particulars of one or more of their positions, need not fear or loathe that term. Only those people who, with a false sense of social justice, or who seek some cause to aggrandise their own sense of self worth, or who advertise their own moral superiority --- they are the ones who may rightly fear and loathe the moniker "SJW". And they should! They aren't helping anything or anyone. They certainly aren't helping the issues they claim to be so passionate about. They are nòt seeking social justice. They are seeking fame only.

Of course, maybe some people really think that condemning harassment constitutes "virtue signaling" - especially if it's a man defending a woman, since apparently men aren't supposed to be capable of genuine empathy towards women (or anyone?). Again, not that some people don't take this too far, rushing valiantly to the defense of what they perceive as poor oppressed minorities in situations where the minorities themselves aren't feeling all that oppressed... But this terminology is not limited to such situations; it can be, and quite often is, used to dismiss pretty much anyone the speaker happens to disagree with.

A part of the problem, I suppose, is that everyone's got a different idea of where the line goes between justified criticism and ridiculous overreaction. But maybe by not immediately going for the most rudely dismissive phrasing we could at least occasionally find some common ground?

Well I'll ask you, since I don't really know: is there an actual term for what these folks are getting up to? One that's not on its face so pejorative? We'll see if the shoe fits.

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

Right. While I agree about not telling people they can't use a slur in group, I think we (outsiders) are certainly justified in questioning the practice. Some slurs, I think, would be best left to the rubbish heap of history. We really need to rise above that kind of behaviour.

Yet here we are casually discussing "SJW"'s. Not that the type of person we seem to be bashing here doesn't exist;

Unless I've missed something, I haven't seen any "bashing" going on. I mean, we actually have to be able to name something and discuss something in order to actually comprehend that something. There are truths about SJWs' behaviour that bear revelation and examination. Discussing these behaviours honestly, critically but not disrespectfully

Well, there's the problem. Using what is essentially a slur, and claiming to know people's motivations better than they do themselves, does, in my view, come across as rather disrespectful. It doesn't help that I recall seeing the same word used to insult other board members in the past, and having asked people to stop using it here.

quite a lot of people - on all sides of the political spectrum - just really seem to get off on anger and pretty much actively seek out excuses to lash out on someone. But the term SJW has strong connotations of being an insult for anyone with any socially progressive ideas,

Here I think we need to make a very strong distinction! I don't quite know what you mean by "socially progressive ideas"

I just used the term the Wikipedia article I linked to uses; there's a further link to the article on social progressivism there. Granted, it's an umbrella term that covers a lot of different ideas, but from the context, it's quite clear that we're talking primarily about the highly progressive notions 1) that people should have equal rights and especially 2) that women qualify as people.

Well I'll ask you, since I don't really know: is there an actual term for what these folks are getting up to? One that's not on its face so pejorative? We'll see if the shoe fits.

First of all, I'm not sure if trying to fit the same simplistic shoe onto whole groups of people is that wise in the first place. That being said, I'm pretty sure there are lots of terms for the various behavioral models exhibited in psychology and the social sciences. I'm thinking anyone who'd like to have an actual productive discussion on the phenomenon would do well to read up a bit on those.

sangi39 wrote:One holiday shouldn't take up a literal third of my year

Boy you've seen nothing, in Brazil everything is Christmas-y by december the first, and after Christmas it's Carnaval until march.

The shops I've worked in over the last decade only have three "seasons". Christmas starts working it's way into shops around early to mid-september at the end of the school summer holidays, kicking in properly on November 1st. The week after Christmas begins the switch to Easter (last year we were putting Easter eggs on the shelf on Boxing Day). Easter then lasts under, well, the day after Easter at which point we switch over to "Summer", regardless of when Easter actually fell. And that's it. Smaller holidays might get a little section for a couple of weeks, like Pancake Day, Valentine's Day, Mothers' Day and Hallowe'en, but the main "season" is still up on the shelves.

You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Seeing what a disaster the Arab Spring was (for the most part), I don't expect much better in Zimbabwe. Revolutions are hard.

Did you see CGPGrey's video on why revolutions don't often seem to do well? I'm not sure how well it holds up overall, but, IIRC, the main idea is that the one's leading the revolution end up needing to a) gain the support of certain members of the old regime (whether that be the military, politicians, or the like), and b) remove any resistance or challenge to their own regime, even if that challenge might come internally (hence why you get "purges" after some revolutions). The end result is that while the previous regime does end up being removed, the form and function of the new regime is, because of the limitations it has in gaining and maintaining power, quite similar to the previous one.

You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Frislander on the ZBB wrote:Well I mean I'm glad that Mugabe's on the way out but I'm not holding out my hopes that it'll lead to full democracy, at least immediately. Things are fairly peaceful right now but I think that's mainly just because there's just so much public support for the coup.

Mugabe is gone (effectively), but things don't seem great for the future:

- Mnangagwa, if he takes over, is a long-term ally and contemporary of Mugabe, and there's no reason to think he'll be a major change
- While the army and the veteran-dominated old hierarchy of Zanu may oppose her, Grace Mugabe apparently has widespread support among younger party members
- Tsvangarai's support has been neutered by his incorporation into the Mugabe regime
- liberals and democrats may be protesting against Mugabe, but the protests are run by Zanu and the army, neither of whom are likely to want a real democracy. It is likely that at some point a crisis moment will come, in which the elites realise they cannot control the popular protests they have encouraged - at that point, there's likely to be a violent crackdown.

Well, there's the problem. Using what is essentially a slur, and claiming to know people's motivations better than they do themselves, does, in my view, come across as rather disrespectful. It doesn't help that I recall seeing the same word used to insult other board members in the past, and having asked people to stop using it here.

There is a key distinction here: no one is (or can) claim to "know people's motivations". We can, however, discuss actual behaviours and actual methods.

I just used the term the Wikipedia article I linked to uses; there's a further link to the article on social progressivism there. Granted, it's an umbrella term that covers a lot of different ideas, but from the context, it's quite clear that we're talking primarily about the highly progressive notions 1) that people should have equal rights and especially 2) that women qualify as people.

I'm thinking anyone who'd like to have an actual productive discussion on the phenomenon would do well to read up a bit on those.

Assuming this is not just some cute way of telling me to fuck off, I will say that I read the article in question. As well as other articles on the topic. The term is not new to me, though some of the instances cited are. As a matter of fact, the term is so not new to me that it is not even actually a pejorative. As I said in my initial response, there is a distinction between legitimate social justice warriorhood (a good example here would be Mother Teresa) and folks who join some cause simply because it makes them feel good or so they can bask in social media's limelight.

Also to the point, I don't see any positive term in that article you referenced to stand against what has sadly become such a pejorative in certain circles. So, I'll ask you again: what term is it you like better? Me, I'm happy with "social justice warrior" itself. Like many words and phrases in the English language, it has many nuances of meaning and use. Context and discourse often clue us in to which is intended.

Lastly, as for your "highly progressive" notions: those are old hat indeed! The Church's stance on the issues you cite was radical right from the start: it was born within a society where very few people had any kind of rights; women especially and children and slaves were in a real sense the property of their keepers. Right from the beginning the concept of the dignity of the person was established: building upon the idea that human beings exist as individuals in God's image and likeness. Equality was also established early on: the concept within the Church that women and men together are "sisters and brothers" in Christ establishes the fundamental equality of the human person in its two basic biological forms. Happily, over the last twenty decades or so Western secular society (generally informed by its Christian roots) has done a lot to play catch-up.

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

Why would you - as an about 50 year-old man - put your arm around a 17 year old girl you've never seen before and ask her if she wants to kiss you? Or why would you go into the women's bathroom and start saying sexual thing to a girl that only wants to go to the toilet?

Asking a stranger for a kiss is certainly forward (and, given the age gap, rather optimistic if he doesn't have Clooney-esque genetics going for him), but not much of an issue if he accepts the answer with good grace.
The unasked-for touching crosses the line though, and following her is straight up creepy.

Okay, now the "SJW" discussion has started getting a tad heated, so I'd suggest dropping it for now.

While the original discussion was actually surprisingly civil, discussing the term in context, bringing up its use as a pejorative term can only lead to arguments that I don't see going particularly well.

You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

One of the reasons I was in favour of the UK staying in the EU was because the EU seem to favour protection of net neutrality more than the UK government does. If the FCC really does go ahead and repeal net neutrality protections like the chairman has said, then booooooooo!

You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.